For those that don't want to read a 200+ page legal document: the Supreme Court of the United States of America struck down a Chicago law banning handguns. <sarcasm>I'm sure we'll see a huge spike in crime because guns are now so much more available to criminals</sarcasm>

And lo, Kano looked down upon the field and saw the multitudes. Amongst them were the disciples of Uesheba who were greatly vexed at his sayings. And Kano spake: "Do not be concerned with the mote in thy neighbor's eye, when verily thou hast a massive stick in thine ass".

And lo, Kano looked down upon the field and saw the multitudes. Amongst them were the disciples of Uesheba who were greatly vexed at his sayings. And Kano spake: "Do not be concerned with the mote in thy neighbor's eye, when verily thou hast a massive stick in thine ass".

They actually did a LOT more than strike down the Chicago ordinance. What they actually held was that "the right upheld in Heller is incorporated." Go back to Heller v. D.C., and "the right" is not a right to have at least one handgun in the home, though Chicago's Mayor, aldermen and corporation counsel are trying to spin it that way for now.
What Heller said in its first holding was that:"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

I stole this from an insider in Illinois . . . notice the highlights he made. There's nothing there limiting McDonald to a decision on whether you can have one handgun in the home--as much as the other side likes to say that Heller left the door open for restrictions, the bottom line is that "lawful purposes" covers a wide range of uses and "such as" means that the bit about possession in the home is only one example.